Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Hello..Dunno if this is possible, but I have a major irk since day one.

When building a combat naval TF, I pay extra to be able to acquire my own TF commanders. (Willis Lee is my favorite BB CO), but once that TF comes back to port, I lose the commander of that TF and am left to re-purchasing my CO's all over again.

Is there a way to make this "loss" or swap optional?

Thank you.

This is also an issue in that whenever I form a new carrier TF and select "auto select" commander the AI almost aways will choose an unsuitable surface fleet commander for the TF rather than any number of skilled carrier commanders available-forcing me to spend valuable PPs on replacing the commander. This does not seem to be a problem when setting up a SCTF.

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Hello..Dunno if this is possible, but I have a major irk since day one.

When building a combat naval TF, I pay extra to be able to acquire my own TF commanders. (Willis Lee is my favorite BB CO), but once that TF comes back to port, I lose the commander of that TF and am left to re-purchasing my CO's all over again.

Is there a way to make this "loss" or swap optional?

Thank you.

This is also an issue in that whenever I form a new carrier TF and select "auto select" commander the AI almost aways will choose an unsuitable surface fleet commander for the TF rather than any number of skilled carrier commanders available-forcing me to spend valuable PPs on replacing the commander. This does not seem to be a problem when setting up a SCTF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Like Halsey would set foot on a DD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Like Halsey would set foot on a DD

Halsey commanded USS Shaw, Wickes, and Dale. So I rather think he had a soft spot for the ol' tin cans.

And my voice is added to the chorus of praises for michaelm - the kind of support we're seeing in this thread is nothing short of extraordinary!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2
Although I found it interesting that Nimitz had the change of command ceremony when he turned the Pacific fleet over to Spruance on a sub.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

Nimitz reminds me of Adm. Sandy Woodward, RN - Woodward grew up in subs, became 'Teacher' (training officer in charge of testing sub-captain wannabees), then advanced to FOFI (Fleet Officer Flotila One) in time to take charge of the Falklands bidness. Makes me wonder, should there be a rule that sub-mariners might get first dibs on command of any fleet operations that might be on the operational horizon? Is there something special about a proven sub guy that prepares him for fleet command?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Could I make a suggestion regarding LCU lists and 'Show hard/soft'. One of the thing I've found arkward to do is check fat, dis, mor in the game so that I can set them to rest or move them off the front line.

Your soft toggle fixes this partially. The problem now is when you sort by say sort 'fat' and switch back to 'show hard' to view those set to rest the list resorts. Is it possible to retain the previous sort for the LCU list when you switch between 'Show hard/soft'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

hi michaelm,

i've run 1108p2 beta (Downfall 14v2 scen, mid-March '46) for 2 turns, i think there's a prob w/ Repl TFs. I've got a coupla Repl TFs (DEs, AOs & AEs), my CV & Surf TFs can re-arm from them, but they won't refuel, i get a "No fuel transferred!" msg.

also (this applies to all the betas, not just 1108p2), when i re-arm TFs from AEs in a Repl TF, the AEs are used 'one-at-a-time', that is, one AE's transfer capacity is used until it reaches 1000 ops points before a 2nd AE is used. This has a bad effect on the Repl TFs ability to move in the next phase, i'd much rather that all available AEs contribute to the re-arm, so that they share the accrued ops points.

when refuel-at-sea was working, all the AOs in a Repl TF would share the burden of refueling TFs, IMO AEs should work the same way.

also under 1108p2, i can't refuel small TFs (7-ship Surf & 4-ship ASW TFs) from larger same-hex CV TFs w/ good fuel, previously these small TFs could suck fuel from any other in-hex TF, even when no Repl TF was present. i'm sayin', Severe Constraint to Ongoing Operations, & will try to back out to 1108m9 beta for my next turn-execute, it won't be groovy if my escorts run dry in the Sea of Japan...

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The only change made to refueling recently has been to curtail the number of fueling and fueler ships in a hex with more than 200+ ships present. This was causing a CTD or some corruption. This issue arose in another player's Downfall game. Could this be a case of too many ships in the hex??

Plus situation where a ship in a TF has less than 70% fuel would cause ALL ships in the TF to start refueling each other, rather than just the one ship below 70%. Thus it slowing down the TF by using up ship ops and affecting its move speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Not sure. I think it sorts on the column # of the displayed list. So if Fat was col#10, then when it gos to the 'hard' columns, it still sorts on col#10 (which is now something else).
Anyway, I'll have a look at it. It would be handy to sort a list up which had a column toggle, and still see where things were on flipping the toggle again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The only change made to refueling recently has been to curtail the number of fueling and fueler ships in a hex with more than 200+ ships present. This was causing a CTD or some corruption. This issue arose in another player's Downfall game. Could this be a case of too many ships in the hex??

Plus situation where a ship in a TF has less than 70% fuel would cause ALL ships in the TF to start refueling each other, rather than just the one ship below 70%. Thus it slowing down the TF by using up ship ops and affecting its move speed.

in the 2 hexes in question, there's at most ~50 ships in 6 TFs, nowhere near 200. i don't believe any were close to 70% fuel, most of the TFs've been moving only 2-3 hexes per day and have been refueling every 3rd day. my TFs could re-arm from the Repl TFs (4 DD, 6 AO, 4 AE), but would not re-fuel. i've since rolled back to 1108m9, and the re-fueling is working again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Do you mean that the message showed and the fuel level was still under 100%?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Do you mean that the message showed and the fuel level was still under 100%?

i've re-installed 110892 & yes, units are not being re-fueled. in some instances, a few ships in a TF will re-fuel from a Repl TF, but not all. in most instances, no fuel is transferred, although Gun & AAA ammo is topped off.

similarly, Repl at Sea is not working for attempts to refuel from non-Repl TFs, such as an ASW TF trying to refuel from a Transport TF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The F7 toggle applies regardless of scenario.

Clouds are not drawn on the map during the orders phase. This was a decision made in 2008 as the clouds tended to cover up the unit under it.
The toggle does work in that it shows/hides the clouds during the turn resloution.

One more reason (probably main one) is that cloud drawing use to cause graphic errors and CTDs. These issues have been corrected in several of the patches.

So I may re-enable cloud drawing again for the next beta. The cloud image varies in 'intensity' so that not all units get 'hidden'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I like this new hard/soft setting.
Is this possible to add similar switch on ships transfer screen? To show remaining ammo in ships? Currently I have to click every ship separately, and check what is current ammo level, and I am frequently sending ships with spent torpedoes to rearming, but want to keep rest of ships at front.


A small glitch:
As I understand "Aircraft stack level" should show current number of engines on airfield, however it seems, that something weird is happening, when some of the groups are set to training. Almost as such setting actually decreased number of engines for non-training groups. Check those pictures. No way there are only 19 active planes on lower picture. Not even mentioning, that most of them are 4Es.
When all groups are set to combat mission, number seems to be OK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

A small glitch:
As I understand "Aircraft stack level" should show current number of engines on airfield, however it seems, that something weird is happening, when some of the groups are set to training. Almost as such setting actually decreased number of engines for non-training groups. Check those pictures. No way there are only 19 active planes on lower picture. Not even mentioning, that most of them are 4Es.
When all groups are set to combat mission, number seems to be OK.

What version?

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Found a problem with groups in training. If mission is non-training, but a patrol level for training is set to 100, then it isn't counted as training.
Is a silly case, but it could easily happen.